Natural Dominant; Natural Submissive; do they exist? are they exemplars?

[Pure]

Sade-- a Dominant? a Sadist? (a scene)

Francisco mentioned (I cant find it, ch. and verse) Sade as a 'natural dom' who became afflicted, and F recommended reading Sade to learn about domination. Here's an actual typical orgy scene in Sade's life (not so violent as scenes in the novels). I post, since the facts are not widely known, even around these parts. What the f*** did he do??

In your opinion, Francisco--and Netzach and others-- do these acts look like those of a dom? a sadist? what?? (In my opinion, the 'classic' cases are far more mixed than the 'ideal' 'pure' or 'natural' types that are proposedl)

July 27, 1772.
From “At home with the Marquis de Sade”, a sympathetic biography, by Francine Du Plessix Gray.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/102-0377391-6272134

[Based on police and court records, one of the scenes that got the Marquis in trouble with the law. Before he did serious prison time, by the way.]

[There are four girls, prostitutes, Mariette (23), Marianne (18) and Marianette (20) Rosette (20)]

In the first scene, the Marquis de Sade locks the door and orders Latour [Sade’s valet] and Marianne to lie down on the bed. He whips the prostitute with one hand while masturbating his servant with the other, calling him “Monsieur le Marquis” [each is pretending to be the other]. Then Latour is asked to leave… Left alone with Marianne, the marquis offers her a gold rimmed crystal candy box containing pastilles of Spanish fly... coated with anise flavored sugar. He tells her to eat plenty of them in order to bring about the desired flatulence: he has specified that he wishes her to fart and let him ‘take the wind in his mouth, ‘….The marquis then says that for an extra coin she can be sodomized by him or by his valet—take your choice, he offers.

When Marianne turns down both options (or so she will claim in her deposition… sodomy being a [capital] crime…) … Sade hands her a scroll of parchment bristling with misshapen nails and asks her to whip him with it. She cannot manage to give more than three blows. ... He then asks her to find a heather broom, which she goes to fetch in the nearby kitchen. ...Marianne strikes the marquis with it several times, as he cries out that she must strike him harder. Suddenly Marianne moans that she feels sick to her stomach. She rushes to the kitchen to get a glass of water.

In the second scene, while Marianne is recovering in the kitchen, Sade invites Latour to return, in the company of Mariette. Sade tells her to undress and to crouch at the foot of the bed. He gives her a few strokes with the broom, and asks her to do the same to him…. While Mariette repeatedly whips him, the marquis, …records… the number of blows that he receives….After a total of 758 blows, he throws the girl down on the bed, face up. He takes his pleasure with her in the conventional manner, while masturbating his valet and then being sodomized [anally] by him. Then exit Mariette, enter Rosette.

The antics of the triad in their scene duplicate those of the previous one….the marquis orders Rosette to undress and watches his valet take her in the missionary position. Latour and Sade next take turns masturbating each other, while Rosette thrashes the marquis with the broom. Sade then offers the girl extra cash to be sodomized by his valet. She refuses….

In the next scene, .[according to] one of the girls police testimony, ‘the man whipped both of us with the broom which…then threw the witness on the bed face down… stuck his nose between the cheeks of her buttocks so as to inhale her wind, and asked the victim to masturbate his domestic again. This she refused to do.’

Then, having ordered Marianette to watch the proceedings, Sade sodomized Marianne while being sodomized by his valet. Marianette turns away and weeps by the window (or so she will testify), saying she does not wish to watch such spectacles.. The marquis again orders her to masturbate Latour, but she refuses, and tries to leave. [all girls beg to leave; Sade dismisses them and pays them a substantial amount, offering more if they will meet him that evening. For some reason, they don't turn up. ;-)The end]

 

[SilkVelvet]

Have you read Justine ? I thought that was pretty extreme in places.

Maybe de Sade has a reputation more because of his fiction than his actual life ???

 

[Pure]

So you find that scene, above, a bit tame.... Would you tell us where _you_ hang out???

J.

 

[SilkVelvet]

It isn't that I find the scene described tame, but more that I have read more extreme scenes in books, certainly more violent things - the murder of the gay transvestite in Last Exit to Brooklyn for example.

I worked in news as a researcher, and it may be a cliche but the saying " the first casualty of war is truth" is absolutely true. News is edited and some things are deemed too disgusting to show on TV - but that doesn't mean they don't happen or that the people working within the media don't have to see and deal with the stuff. So in terms of 'man's inhumanity to man' and actual violence and torture I have seen video stuff of more than most will ever see and narrowly avoided haing to go out and be in the thick of it.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Fransisco,

I was wondering if Catalina's idea of the ideal natural sub differs in any way from yours, or is that your combined perspective. The only reason I ask is that it may be interesting to see the difference in opinion from the sub's point of view, if any, in such a close and like minded couple.

OK, as I have been asked for my ideas on this, and Master wants me to contribute my thoughts, I will attempt to answer. First I want to make a couple of statements to clear up confusion or incorrect assumptions from some. First I think the word 'ideal' is a little bit like 'normal'; who decides what is normal or ideal and by whose benchmark? I personally hate generalisations and think they are both very subjective words, ideal especially relating to what is considered ideal by the individual. Secondly, as I see myself as a slave and view this as different to a submissive, I most likely will relate my answer in terms of my reality and goals for myself.

Thirdly, my introduction to and education on the term 'natural born slave' was through the majority of D's I met in my search for Master, who described me as being this, and being always curious and keen to learn new things, I of course asked, mmmm maybe interrogated might be a better word for some, what they meant by that statement and how it fit with me. So though I knew I was this way from the earliest years of childhood but didn't formulate a name for it, of course my view is coloured also by these experienced and diverse gentlemen from all four corners of the globe. Yes, I mean it when I say I searched far and wide for the one who was meant to own me...LOL. OK, so here goes.

The natural slave/submissive: (hetero/bi/sexual/female as this is my reality and I do not wish to try and speak for other sexualities)

Inner strength, ethics, and values which have been a mainstay throughout life to help face the challenges they encounter;

Need to submit to one person in a way they cannot deny and cannot change with time or whim; a need which shines from the heart and soul so I have been told, which does not need words or extravagant gestures to convince a D of their sincerity and commitment;

Lifelong desire to be dominated and serve a Master to the point of never even fantasising of being dominant themselves when dreaming of 'what could be';

Consensual dominance of the slave/sub and her submission being the strongest aphrodesiac she can experience and not reliant on that dominance/submission being witnessed by anyone other than her Master and herself though that may or may not increase the effect. In other words not needing to go in public to display the relationship to get the needed kick from it's essence;

Inner instinct to recognise dominance in a Master and not mistake bullies or braggarts for Dominants; not feel a need to submit to anyone but her Master, or as a tool of her Master when with others so being once again a submission only to her Master;

Need to be honest which comes from within not a Master's rules; this includes informing Master of any transgressions without being asked or caught out, but more so out of their need to obey, submit, and be truthful; goes without saying the slave has had a strong conscience throughout their lives which has made dishonesty a fate worse than death;

Intelligence to understand life and their role, as well as to provide their Master with one who does not submit blindly or out of fear, but submits from the soul; intellect also to be offered as an asset to be used as their Master sees fit;

Puts the needs of the Master before their own in all circumstances, unless He commands otherwise;

No matter how well they put these needs first, to make a conscious effort to continually remind themselves to find new and diverse ways of doing this;

Learn their Master so well they begin to anticipate His needs and wants to minimise His need to continually ask thus making Master's life easier;

Know themselves well so they can ensure they improve on the skills their Master finds pleasing sexual, creative, or otherwise;

Be able to formulate their own opinions on all issues, and brave enough to verbalise them when asked; accept their Master's right to differ, and accept his word as final;

Has no desire to control or dominate in a relationship but is capable of coping alone if and when necessary; in other words submissive, preferring to be guided by Master, but not dependent and unable to survive alone;

Needs a symbiotic relationship where His needs are her needs, His limits her limits: her masochism feeding His sadism on equal level (for us anyway);

For a slave, the ability to fully accept TPE to the extreme.

So, although due to circumstances at the moment I don't feel I have expressed myself as well as I might have, I am hoping it is adequate to convey meaning.

Catalina

 

[lark sparrow]

Wow, I've never seen homosexual, homosexuality, lesbian and gay used to so many times in one BDSM Talk thread - rather amazing given the predominance of heterosexuality, and the large and assumptive male Dom/fem sub bias around these parts.

I think the use of it begins to break down pretty quickly upon comparison.

In the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender community inclusiveness is part of it's power and you will find that 'natural' only applies to sexuality itself, not a special 'type' of homosexual individual. Yes, I am a lesbian, and uhm yes, it is a natural state for me. However, to state I am a 'natural lesbian' is unheard of, comical and repetitive in the queer sense. Oh right - as opposed to all the artificial lesbians? Perhaps 'real' or 'true' are used at times, but we all know where that goes.

Comparing scales heterosexuality-homosexuality and dominance-submission also quickly breaks down. In these models a 10 heterosexual and 1 homosexual will never fulfill eachother needs, whereas Francisco's 10 matches and complements catalina's 1.

Being dominant is a personality trait or innate character aspect outside of the BDSM context. Homosexuality is not a personality trait outside of sexuality. Unless you want to say, he acts 'gay', but he is heterosexual. Which means? Nothing. Some people are 'dominant types' and have no interest in BDSM, and some do. Some people have a 'submissive' personality and have no interest in BDSM, and some do. And, so..... ?

Being a lesbian does not mean that I have sex with all women or that I am sexually attracted to all women. Being a lesbian is not the same thing as dressing like a dyke and liking punk music. Being a lesbian does not mean that I work at a whole foods woman-owned and operated co-op and wear comfortable shoes. It is a sexual orientation, other than that I suppose you could call some lesbians 'classic' types or walking stereotypes - whichever you prefer.

Although I have seen quite a few people around here attach 'natural' to their BDSM orientation or preference, it seems it has only the vaguest of universal meaning, and is often more personal in scope. Now that everyone has gotten their amazing academic credentials out on the table - who'd have thunk? - we all have natures which are natural to us, and they vary from individual to individual.

I have two dogs. One is Dominant with an underlined, bold and capital D. The 'submissive' dog is not really 'submissive' at all in character, in fact he is bigger, stronger and more 'outgoing' than the dominant dog, but the fact is, that my dog who 'bottoms' would literally have to kill my alpha dog to gain any sort of dominance at all. So the alpha dog's need to dominate trumps my other dog's benevolent (and not prone to fighting till death) nature. Does it mean the alpha dog is a better leader? Not in the least. It means he refuses to follow or give an inch in confrontation. There's also a duality of nature as my alpha dog is faithfully submissive to me - all other beasts are below him, but he is actually more submissive and needy towards me then my 'bottoming' dog.

So what does this mean? To me it means that there is also a scale of being hard-wired for D/s or even SM. Pure, this may play into your bringing Sade into the conversation, as we can see he is not a modern day "Dominant" in the BDSM context by any stretch of the imagination.

Some people naturally play on a more or less level playing field by nature, others almost always have a power dynamic going because that is how they experience life. This also fits well with my understanding of my own nature. I am aware and sensitive to power and control in most relationships and aspects of my life- have been for as long as I have been aware of their existence. I am a submissive within the BDSM context, but I am not submissive to everyone or a 'natural submissive' beyond the naturalness of submitting to One - it is natural for me to take a more dominant role with many and a more submissive role with some, and to have One to whom I surrender in a more complete and fully BDSM/lifestyle sense. And my bones are just the bones of a human female.

nat·u·ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.

Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
Faithfully representing nature or life.
Expected and accepted: “In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper).
Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.

Related by blood: the natural parents of the child.
Born of unwed parents: a natural child.
Mathematics. Of or relating to positive integers, sometimes including zero.
Music.
Not sharped or flatted.
Having no sharps or flats.

n.

One having all the qualifications necessary for success: You are a natural for this job.
One suited by nature for a certain purpose or function: She is a natural at mathematics.

 

[catalina_francisco]

It's ironic, I don't buy "natural" even after all this discourse, but my ideal Dominant/ideal submissive paradigms are almost identical to Francisco's.

How can this be?

We do not differ that much, both of us have very strong ties with our partner. The both of us only want to 'dominate’ our partner. And if I may say so both of us have pretty much the same ideas about the level of knowledge a 'dominant', ok I will say it, or Top should try to acquire.

Most of our differences are in our approach to reach the state of 'dominance' we both want to acquire. The rest is just terminology, or 'labels'.

Francisco.

 

[lark sparrow]

It seems a fool's errand to try to qualify or disqualify the 'natural'.

How do we clarify seemingly opposing statements?

I will use Bachlum Chaam's words simply as an example from this thread:

I have always been dominant in everything, I do not think I am any form of blue blood type, in truth more agricultural. My dominant side was in everything in life from work through all of my life, superior to anyone no! I wouldn't have what it takes to be a sub in anything in my life too dificult for my liking.

and then

I was asked to expand on my life before now, I am in a vanilla marriage which is and has been useless. Within the last 7 years I have had heart trouble. So with that happening I have stopped living as others want me too purely because I am to old to care what others think. So now I am deciding my own path now.

So, how many years 'out' and true to one's 'natural' nature and what kind of a background must a 'natural Dominant or submissive or slave' have?

I knew I was a lesbian at 15 - didn't have to have long-term, serious relationships with men, get married and have kids to find out - does that make me more of a 'natural lesbian' than the woman who did all those things and then realized and accepted when middle-aged that she was lesbian? I'm not butch, and don't relate well to the whole butch-femme dynamic - does that make me less 'naturally' lesbian or more so?

If someone feels compelled to call themselves a 'natural' something or other it doesn't particularly bother me, within the realization that it is a largely personal definer. But to try to make it a universal term or an exemplar just seems a losing and limiting exercise.

 

[Pure]

Hi LS,

you said,

//In the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender community inclusiveness is part of it's power and you will find that 'natural' only applies to sexuality itself, not a special 'type' of homosexual individual. Yes, I am a lesbian, and uhm yes, it is a natural state for me. However, to state I am a 'natural lesbian' is unheard of, comical and repetitive in the queer sense. Oh right - as opposed to all the artificial lesbians? Perhaps 'real' or 'true' are used at times, but we all know where that goes.//

I appreciate all of your contributions, and esp. how you encourage new thinking and breaking the old modes. A majority of the time, I find myself agreeing with your points.

It would seem,however, you're getting too hung up on this one word, though admittedly its proponents chose it, and I used it in my thread title.

If the gay, lesbian, and transgender folks don't use a certain phrase, I think the equivalents can be observed. "I was born gay." "It's just who I am [gay, lesbian]" "I have no memory of being other than lesbian in my orientation." "My contacts are exclusively homosexual." "I have not a het bone in my body, thank you." "I cannot change, it's my nature." "The lesbian lifestyle was not a choice for me; it's me to the core." "I'm 100% gay and never had the slightest interest in women. My erotic energy exists in an entirely and exclusively 'gay' mode."

As I argued a couple posts ago, I see the gay lesbian movement as latching hold of 'natural' arguments, to further the cause. The persecutors say "It's an evil choice." A lesbian say "Choice does not exist for me--though I had a sham marriage. It's who I am."
"It's not unnatural, it's found in the animal kingdom." It's found in every human society.

Gay and lesbians typically are hostile and irate about 'cures'. "There is nothing wrong with me, it's just how I am; it can't be changed; it's been there since birth, it's me."

So instead of 'natural dom/me', try 'through and through' dom/me; born dom, dom by inherent nature, exclusively dom without a sub bone in the body. In a way, 100% dom/me or exclusive dom/me would also work, since the idea is the absence of any conflicting/opposing tendency.

Best,
J.

 

[Netzach]

Sade-- a Dominant? a Sadist? (a scene)

Dominant, not widly effectively so. Blessed with more political power than his "playmates" yes.

Sadistic, well, yes, masochistic too. Some of the best are.

 

[lark sparrow]

Hi LS,

you said,

//In the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender community inclusiveness is part of it's power and you will find that 'natural' only applies to sexuality itself, not a special 'type' of homosexual individual. Yes, I am a lesbian, and uhm yes, it is a natural state for me. However, to state I am a 'natural lesbian' is unheard of, comical and repetitive in the queer sense. Oh right - as opposed to all the artificial lesbians? Perhaps 'real' or 'true' are used at times, but we all know where that goes.//

I appreciate all of your contributions, and esp. how you encourage new thinking and breaking the old modes. A majority of the time, I find myself agreeing with your points.

It would seem,however, you're getting too hung up on this one word, though admittedly its proponents chose it, and I used it in my thread title.

If the gay, lesbian, and transgender folks don't use a certain phrase, I think the equivalents can be observed. "I was born gay." "It's just who I am [gay, lesbian]" "I have no memory of being other than lesbian in my orientation." "My contacts are exclusively homosexual." "I have not a het bone in my body, thank you." "I cannot change, it's my nature." "The lesbian lifestyle was not a choice for me; it's me to the core." "I'm 100% gay and never had the slightest interest in women. My erotic energy exists in an entirely and exclusively 'gay' mode."

As I argued a couple posts ago, I see the gay lesbian movement as latching hold of 'natural' arguments, to further the cause. The persecutors say "It's an evil choice." A lesbian say "Choice does not exist for me--though I had a sham marriage. It's who I am."
"It's not unnatural, it's found in the animal kingdom." It's found in every human society.

Gay and lesbians typically are hostile and irate about 'cures'. "There is nothing wrong with me, it's just how I am; it can't be changed; it's been there since birth, it's me."

So instead of 'natural dom/me', try 'through and through' dom/me; born dom, dom by inherent nature, exclusively dom without a sub bone in the body. In a way, 100% dom/me or exclusive dom/me would also work, since the idea is the absence of any conflicting/opposing tendency.

Best,
J.

If Francisco or any other 'natural Dominant' were defending the cause of D/s being a natural expression between 'safe, sane and consensual' adults against an opposing outside force it would make more sense. It seems to me it is closer to a classification based on 'lifestyle' and 'trueness' personally - distinctions within the culture. I haven't seen anyone offer Francisco a cure. His natural dominance has not prevented him from having certain civil rights nor disallowed him legal marriage, etc. - it is not far off from traditional values that are accepted, encouraged and rewarded in the mainstream, particularly with men. I really don't think they are based on the same concepts at all in truth, but I could be wrong.

 

[Netzach]

Jumping in here, I think SM leaning can be filed under "sexuality" however, just as much as "Gay" or "trannyboy" or other things queer, or things like "poly."

And it still can lose you a pretty fine job, unless you are an arms inspector.

My opinion, about all of my sexuality, is "do I have to be born this way to have the right to be left the fuck alone?"

And if I am only "born this way" maybe some science need only be applied, scarier thought.

 

[Pure]

Hi LS

Just did a Google search on 'unnatural' and 'homosexuality'. Lots of hits.

While we may spurn the categories as naive and irrelevant, the debate rages on, exactly in the terms 'natural' and 'unnatural.
Since I believe in the analogy of sadistic desires with homosexual ones---in terms of the persecution and the defense of them, I post this material. Iow BDSM folks have heard and will hear these same arguements.

Some examples:

====
Scarleteen site--well known-- on homosexuality... (liberal) Defense of gay as 'natural.'

http://www.scarleteen.com/gaydar/basics_2.html

Is it unnatural?
It most certainly is not. Not only is it natural in people, it occurs commonly in other mammals and animals as well, such as chimpanzees, cows, ducks and other birds, cats, dogs, insects, gorillas, horses, sheep, monkeys, and a plethora of other creatures. It also is nothing new. Though through much of history many homosexuals and bisexuals have not been "out," most anthropologists and biologists agree that it has occurred in humans for just as long as heterosexuality.


====
University course on topic
U. of Cal, San Diego
http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cach...on.doc+homosexuality+unnatural&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Note: the frog is a misreading of, "" Insert that with no spaces and you'll get a working url. I don't know how to turn off the damn icon. The "P" is a part of Psy, i.e., it's a psych course.

====
University course on topic
Memorial Univ. Newfoundland
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/2800a/Unnaturalness&Sex.html
=====

'Dave's website' on homosexuality. (Dave is gay)

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section06.html#not_unnatural
=====

catholic site homosexuality is unnatural
http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

Natural Law People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal. The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural. Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions.

For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth. To avoid the force of the natural law argument against homosexual behavior, some gay activists have offered a number of claims, which we will examine.

"I Was Born This Way" Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them. But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice.

For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them. Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them. For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.

The Ten Percent Argument. Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of the population is homosexual, meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior. But not all common behaviors are acceptable, and even if ten percent of the population were born homosexual, this would prove nothing. One hundred percent of the population is born with original sin and the desires flowing from it. If those desires manifest themselves in a homosexual fashion in ten percent of the population, all that does is give us information about the demographics of original sin.

But the fact is that the ten percent figure is false. It stems from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey’s subjects were drawn heavily from convicted criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent) were convicted sex offenders—a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.

Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual "phase" but who were not long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House, 1990].) Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown that only around one to two percent of the population is homosexual.

=====
Conservative protestant site
http://www.summit.org/resources/ThatWhichIsUnnatural.htm
Christian research journal, article That which is unnatural" by Joseph Gudel


It is only in the heterosexual union of marriage that we find the fulfillment of God's intended order, both procreative and unitive. However, pro-homosexual writers argue that while homosexual activity in and of itself cannot be procreative it can still fulfill the unitive role of Genesis 2. In response to this Harvey writes:
Consider the three common forms of sexual activity between homosexual persons. Mutual masturbation in no way constitutes a physical union.... Among female homosexuals some form of genital massage is used to bring the partner to orgasm, but this is not a physical union. In anal or oral intercourse between males the intromission of the penis in an opening of the body not meant to be used for the genital expression of sexuality cannot be called a true physical union....By way
of contrast, the heterosexual union aptly symbolizes the psychological and spiritual union that ought to exist between a man and a woman.[24]
One does not need a Ph.D. to realize that homosexuality is anatomically aberrant; that is, there is a created biological order intended in our sexuality. As an editorialist at Harvard's Peninsula journal writes: "How can (homosexual) people
be happy when they're persistently deceiving themselves, believing that it is just as natural for sperm to swim into feces as it is to swim into eggs?"[25]
"The true religious goal of human sexuality can be seen, not as satisfaction, but as completeness." [26] This fulfillment is unattainable in homosexuality.
Now that we have considered God's positive purpose in creating human sexuality, we are ready to look at biblical texts which explicitly address homosexuality. Space precludes a detailed response to pro-homosexual interpretations of these passages. The interested reader can check the resources
listed in the endnotes for further reading.

=====

 

[lark sparrow]

I'm not sure what any of your google hits have to with the topic, Pure. I am quite familiar with this stuff - I live it.

No one is denying the natural qualities of dominance and submission as far as I can see - not even the mainstream or 'vanilla' folks. People may claim BDSM is wrong, but D/s is one of the facts of life.

Edited to add: BDSM folks have to deal with the abuse issue far more than they have to deal with the unnatural issue. I think you're pretty far off on this venture.

It's why the BDSM community "latches hold" to the 'safe, sane and consensual' slogan. I don't believe the claim of 'natural Dominance', 'natural sub' or 'natural slave' have much to do with any of these issues, but instead are labels to identify those who feel their dominance and submission is not a game, not a role, not a part-time pre-occupation and is used within the community, not against those who have a claim against the unnatural act of dominance and submission.

 

[Pure]

Hi LS,

I'm afraid you're not 'up' on this issue of bdsm and the law and related normative concepts. Google search on 'bdsm' and 'unnatural' reveals a number of hits, and the "Law on Unnatural Acts" is one of several laws highlighted at the" bdsm and the law" website below. At the second site, note the wording of the proposed Oregon law.

=====
BDSM and the law website.
Mass Law on Unnatural Acts

http://www.bdsbbs.com/unnatural_acts.htm
===

FAQ, pro bdsm
http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/v.htm

Why is SM taboo, and is SM criminal, unnatural, immoral...

[Answer:]
[...]
As for "natural": people have practiced SM behaviors throughout history. Many are the saints who scourged themselves in the name of the Lord. Using intense sensation to reach altered states of mind is a practice as old as humanity itself--and hence can be considered in no way "unnatural". [...]

These issues are very controversial, even now. In the 1992 Oregon state ballot, voters narrowly overturned a measure named OR 9, which contained the following paragraph:

"State, regional, and local government and their departments, agencies, and other entities, including specifically the State Department of Higher Education and the public schools, shall assist in setting a standard for Oregon's youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism, and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse and that these behaviors are to be discouraged and avoided."

Homosexuality, sadism, and masochism are neither wrong nor unnatural. All three are consensual ways of living and loving that many people enjoy.
======





.

 

[lark sparrow]

Hi LS,


Homosexuality, sadism, and masochism are neither wrong nor unnatural. All three are consensual ways of living and loving that many people enjoy.
======
.

LOL Considering I am a lesbian submissive/masochist (with a sadistic streak) I could hardly disagree, nor have any of my points claimed otherwise. Theory is fine, but I am speaking of my life and my two outings in both of these areas which received very different reactions. I didn't realize this was a thread to make the non-believers believe in BDSM as a natural act.

Some of these arguments are very interesting, and the personal stories and opinions are as well, but no one is going to change their sexuality or overall personality or even their opinion over any of this. If Francisco's 'natural Dominance' and owned subgal's 'natural submission' has something to do with the good fight for BDSM acceptance then more power to them, and my mistake.

my understanding of this perspective is that it is a personal expression of the depth of their Dominance and submission, not a specific claim that BDSM is natural and should be lawful. Either way it fine - there's nothing wrong with being a 'natural'. We can say BDSM is natural, or can say specific people in BDSM are naturals - the first is pretty inclusive, the second can be more exclusive. Perhaps it is stated as a simple fact, in which case it is not an exemplar at all. Do you consider the title 'natural submissive or Dominant' a political stance?

 

[catalina_francisco]

I don't believe the claim of 'natural Dominance', 'natural sub' or 'natural slave' have much to do with any of these issues, but instead are labels to identify those who feel their dominance and submission is not a game, not a role, not a part-time pre-occupation and is used within the community, not against those who have a claim against the unnatural act of dominance and submission.

Hi LS,

I have enjoyed the discussion between yourself and Pure. There are 3 important reasons for me to use the label 'natural'. It is a way to distinguish myself from the players, indicating that it is my lifestyle, my way of living. I use it to show the depth of my commitment to BDSM, and the integration of BDSM into my reality.

I have a certain instinctive need to dominate; it is a force inside me which I can control but not silence. Dominating and exerting sexual and non-sexual control over my partner answers a need, when I do not comply, it creates a hunger inside me, a hunger to control and dominate, a hunger which I need to feed.

IMO this is what happened to Sade, you can clearly see in his life how much he needed to exert control and power but not living in our ‘enlightened’ times he lost control over himself and did not comply to Safe Sane and Consensual, no he raped, murdered and pillaged.

Natural also has another meaning, something can feel completely natural, it can be considered as being a normal and integral part of your personality, which is also another reason I use that terminology. It is part of me, if feels completely ’natural’ to me.

The problem with the term ‘natural’ inside the lifestyle has been created by the usage of that word by the more ‘traditional’ subcultures inside BDSM. They have created an association between the heterosexual male-female domination and the label ‘natural’ implying that any other form of BDSM is unnatural. This is of course not the ‘natural’ I am talking about, nor do I want to be associated with those groups.

There is more understanding outside the community for something that is natural, something that you are compelled to do because you are born that way. To make a conscious thought to exert control and power over your partner is something that is not understood by the majority of the ‘vanilla’ people. Although sadism and masochism are not necessary part of our lifestyle, it is seen as such by outsiders of BDSM. For most ‘sane’, ‘normal’, ‘vanilla’s’ it is seen as a sign of mental illness, or perversion, to make a conscious decision to perform acts that ‘they’ consider medieval torture. I have even been called possessed by the devil. To the vanilla’s it would make more sense if we would have a genetic defect, an illness that compels us to behave in such a disgusting and clearly ‘sick’ way.

Although the terminology ‘natural’ might make it easier to be accepted by society, I myself refuse to be accepted under such terms. I do not consider myself a freak, I do not consider myself to be sick, I do not have a personality disorder and I do not have a genetic defect. I have the right to be the person I desire to be, I do not need or want any justification, as long as I practice safe, sane and consensual BDSM it is my fullest right to life however I desire and if there are section in the vanilla world that have problems with that I do not care, I will defend my case based on my right as individual to live how I want to live, as long as I do not infringe on the rights of others. I will not resort to claiming I have no choice, it is in my genes. If the consequence of using 'natural' is to have a genetic defect, I rather am called 'unnatural'.

Francisco.

 

[incubus_dark]

As usual Fransisco, your arguments are cogent and I enjoy your point of view. And too, thank you Catalina for indulging me with your opinion.

It seems to me, that LS' objections are based largely on the use of the term, 'natural' and the interpretation and importance she gives to it. This is obviously coloured by her life experience and world view, as it is for us all. Apart from expressing her opinion, which is as valid as any, it serves to highlight that interpretation is as much a barrier to concensus in any discussion of this type, as basic difference of opinion is itself.

The de Sade was as notorius for his masochism as he was for his sadism, amongst his peers and contemporaries. It is only the bias of his fiction that colours popular perception of him from this end of history (fairly low grade fiction too, I think). However, I seem to have missed his relevance to the points in question.

 

[SilkVelvet]

Seems to me that from some of the posts above, we are getting into the realms of sexual politics.

The vanilla mainstream sees both BDSM and homosexuality and bisexuality be it male or female, as unnatural. Whereas for us in our own lives, they are us, labels we use to loosely describe ourselves to fit within communities.

From our posts Lark sparrow, it would seem that with regard to GLBT we are on the same page. I do not know personally of any discrimination or hierachial attitude towards women who have come out as lesbian at an early age and those who have gone the conventional heterosexual route and then had that self-realisation and come out as lesbian. Not IRL and not online. I think personally it would be considered politically incorrect and both divisive and detrimental within the community.

That is not to say that the Lesbian community as a whole has no issues and does not discriminate. I would not want to hold it up as a shining example either. There are issues between lesbians and bisexuals.

My ISP closed the UK Bisexual boards and chat rooms, for example, because of the problem of heterosexual men and women posting personal ads wanting threesomes. The posters merely moved to the lesbian boards and chatrooms and started asking there, obviously not understanding the term 'lesbian' !

However, for bisexuals, both male and female our whole online community was taken away from us. The lesbians on the boards and chatrooms, heartily sick of the personal ads posters, became extremely hostile to all bisexual women and it got so bad, that several private bisexual female groups were started. So the bisexual community online on my ISP became fragmented.

So I look at the issue of natural Dominants and submissives within the BDSM community and even though I understand now what Francisco, Catalina and Netzach mean by the term, I hope very much that the natural issue does not become divisive within the community and have the effect of polarisation.

 

[Pure]

Francisco said, about Sade,

//he lost control over himself and did not comply to Safe Sane and Consensual, no he raped, murdered and pillaged.//

Sade was never charged with murder, nor is there any evidence of such.

He was charged in connection with scenes such as I have posted, to try to inform people. The lettre de cachet issued by the king, imprisioned him indefinitely, but did not mention murder.

So far as the evidence goes--and you can asses the scene yourself-- he physically abused some prostitutes who arguably had agreed to some "SM". That's assault. He forced some to utter blasphemies; that yielded a charge of blasphemy. Lastly there is 'debauchery', which I'm sure some on this board can understand.**

I could post another scene, but it should be clear that Sade was pretty much in control, though very reckless, and rape murder and pillage--so far as the evidence goes-- was not part of the picture. It's my supposition that Francisco is unacquainted with the bio, and is thinking about and/or extrapoling from incidents in the Sade novels. Always a dangerous speculation, and one that misfires with almost all authors writing fiction about murders.

There are a couple fine bios available, by Lely, Lever, and lately Francine Du Plessix Gray "At home with the Marquis de Sade" available at amazon.

**PS: Oh, I just remembered. He was charged with poisoning, in connection with the scene I posted. The girls were quite sick from the "spanish fly.' Yet it seems clear he wasn't trying to harm them in that way. Poisoning charges were dropped or cleared, iirc.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Ditto s_v.....bisexuality is so misunderstood in many ways by many people. We were talking about similar issues today. I agree with you it would be a shame to see BDSM community become fragmentated like some sections of the LGBT community. Seems though people belong to 'minority' (so-called) groups and suffer oppression first hand, when things begin to improve, they so soon forget and start repeating the process on those within their own community.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

Silk V said,

//However, for bisexuals, both male and female our whole online community was taken away from us. The lesbians on the boards and chatrooms, heartily sick of the personal ads posters, became extremely hostile to all bisexual women and it got so bad, that several private bisexual female groups were started. So the bisexual community online on my ISP became fragmented.

So I look at the issue of natural Dominants and submissives within the BDSM community and even though I understand now what Francisco, Catalina and Netzach mean by the term, I hope very much that the natural issue does not become divisive within the community and have the effect of polarisation.//

I have seen this, too. The 'pure' or 'exclusive' gay or lesbian ('born that way') questioning one who still has heterosexual sex.

Since I used the dog example already, I'll continue: Think of the owners of 'purebreds' who think they have superior dogs to the mixed Heinz 57 ones. Bosh. Indeed, as I said, my last purebred died of heredity illness common to the breed and the mixed replacement dog has a much better health and life expectancy.

So while I have been somewhat sympathetic to the idea of a 100% from birth, exclusive, through and through 'natural'
dom/me it does I admit LEND ITSELF to hierarchy, though Francisco is rather careful, as are the IE folks [Added: with whom he does not presently identify, according to recent statements.]

Still, evaluative terms and connotations are seeming there: witness:

F said, of the self description 'natural master':
//It is a way to distinguish myself from the players, indicating that it is my lifestyle, my way of living. I use it to show the depth of my commitment to BDSM, and the integration of BDSM into my reality.//

Without intending it, he's become the serious one, as compared with 'players.' He does it for real, but Netzach, in her own words 'plays.'

Similarly the term 'depth of my commitment.' carries the suggestion that others--e.g., the switchy types-- have less depth of commitment. Or in the term above, are 'players.'

So despite F's unusual clarity and charity, one sees words that bring one to the precipice of hierarchy and elitism, though I'm sure that's not his intent.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Interesting facts about Sade:

1768 April 3
1772 September 3

For the rest, yes I have taken some liberty with the actual facts concerning Sade. But he was accused during his life with a lot more then having an orgy now and then.

And the pillage thing, well yes, but it sounds so much better if you state murder, rape and pillage then rape, poisoning, and kidnapping.

Francisco.

 

[SilkVelvet]

After de Sade seduced his SIL , a nun, and they fled together, he came back to face the music. During the Revolutionary era, he was asked to sit in judgement on those who had judged him; he refused and was imprisoned.

Depravity with honour

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Pure,

Anything and everything lends itself for hierarchical models. That is a fact of life, and perhaps the intentions of the interpreter. As you might have seen in the posts I have already admitted that Netzach is as serious in her 'dominance' as I am.

About switches, yes, they have a different view on BDSM than mine but just as valid. Although you keep noting that of course I do not want to make any hierarchical model, you keep bringing up my statements in defence and attack of the same model. While I have very clearly taken distance from traditional groups as IE, you keep trying to make a connection between me and them, cleverly disguised at times, but the seed is sowed none the less.

I wonder why?

It makes your statements a bit tedious by now, continuous repetition is by now an old trick and not very becoming of someone which has such a great intellect as yourself.

Francisco.